W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2013

(wrong string) ”: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF

From: Luca Matteis <lmatteis@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:16:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CALp38EPZuPcXiNbhPXd0jkB-3MWaj+r9gebMSNTTWaJT8Ghm8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Tim-Berner's Lee page (http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html) that
describes what Linked Data is, has a picture of a mug. This mug mentions
"RDF" twice! Both in the 4 and the 5 stars sections of the mug.

I understand that there could be other ways (other than RDF) to make Linked
Data work. But RDF *is* part of Linked Data's definition, and part of the
reason why it works!

Why else would Tim put that mug at the top of that page, and why would so
many people buy it?


On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:

> On 06/18/2013 03:24 PM, David Booth wrote:
>
>> On 06/18/2013 08:29 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com
>>> <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com**>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Luckily, I believe only a minority of folks hold the distorted views
>>>     you continue to espouse in this debate.
>>>
>>> I actually believe the opposite. That's why I wish emails had +1 in them.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed, the results of this poll on the meaning of the term Linked Data
>> are pretty clear, though I'm sure an extremely vocal minority will swear
>> up and down that they are meaningless:
>> http://goo.gl/GMeom
>>
>> The original poll was posted here:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-lod/2013Jun/**0163.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/0163.html>
>>
>
> Hi David, with all due respect, as mentioned earlier, the poll doesn't
> reveal anything other than the number of people that clicked a bunch of
> buttons. Practically speaking, the answer is "yes" when the question is
> phrased that way. I don't think anyone (most?) is disputing that here, but
> its take away, if any.
>
> However, on the mailing list, I feel that everyone is responding to two
> different questions. One camp is looking at "Linked Data" as closely tied
> to RDF, and another as something broader, more towards the "weaving the
> web" vision. There is no conflict here as I see it but a strong need for
> clarity and patience in these discussions.
>
> In order to learn from one another, I'd like to invite all to describe
> Linked Data using their own words. It might actually reveal more about what
> we understand as a community (as opposed to a poll with fixed answers), and
> then figure out how to communicate better. If I'm not being overly
> presumptuous, we are all on the same boat at the end of the day :)
>
> Explain Linked Data Like I'm Five:
>
> http://www.reddit.com/r/**semanticweb/comments/1gbuvp/**
> explain_linked_data_like_im_**five/<http://www.reddit.com/r/semanticweb/comments/1gbuvp/explain_linked_data_like_im_five/>
>
> -Sarven
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 14:17:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:36 UTC